Political Crossfire Forums

[forthegreatergood]

I was watching a television show on (PBS)The Public Broadcasting System in the United States of America called "Life Beyond Earth"http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/alone/terraforming.html.

The program was about terraforming the planet Mars and how we could make it habitable for life that exists like that on Planet Earth. Why do they spend so much money and resources on this issue while we have beings on Planet Earth suffering due to drought, soil erosion, etc? For example, the show talked about releasing oxygen and vegetation as well as other materials on earth to start the processes conducive to a circulating and efficient ecosphere. But why is it that we cannot even solve the problem of making the deserts such as the Sahara desert thats location is the African continent, or why is it that there is not more effort referring to the preservation of the rainforests?


Planet Earth:


Planet Mars:

[Wolverine]

The main difference being, the entire surface of Mars is like that picture, a barren waste land, while the earth defiantly has an immense portion of the total area still habitable for human life.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Wolverine wrote: The main difference being, the entire surface of Mars is like that picture, a barren waste land, while the earth defiantly has an immense portion of the total area still habitable for human life.

Also the shara desert is there for diffrent reasons to the martian deserts.

You might also want to note that the shara is a product of teraforming.

[forthegreatergood]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Wolverine wrote: The main difference being, the entire surface of Mars is like that picture, a barren waste land, while the earth defiantly has an immense portion of the total area still habitable for human life.

Also the shara desert is there for diffrent reasons to the martian deserts.

You might also want to note that the shara is a product of teraforming.

So what can be done to make the situation better?

[John Galt]

The thing Mars needs is water. Water regulates the temperture, which is why deserts are so hot during the day and cold at night. I don't know how at this juncture we could make a wet Mars, as it would be hard enough to move part of the sea into the Sahara to start terraforming it. Why we would do so anyway is beyond me.

[mathurin]

not to mention that terraforming the sahara would destroy a unique ecosystem












:rofl:

[DarkMerlin]

Well, as has already been mentioned, terraforming Mars involves huge strokes that effect the entire planet (or at least large portions thereof), while the Sahara is a very specific region. Of course, we could do certain things to change the climate and environment of the Sahara, but it would probably take decades and the cost/benefit ratio would, at least compared to terraforming Mars, be extremely lackluster.

What is so important about terraforming Mars isn't just that it is another place for people to live; it is that high populations and population densities off Earth will need to be created (as soon as possible) in order to provide safeguards for our civilization against extinction-level events (impact by an NEO, nuclear war, etc.). If a large asteroid or comet hits Earth now, our civilization is essentially done for. But if our civilization is distributed over several planets and/or artificial biospheres, one of these planets can suffer a catastrophe and still human civilization pretty much intact. While there is no precedent on which to judge the survival of multi-planet species/civilizations, we know that single-planet species/civilizations cannot survive indefinitely. That's why space colonization and terraforming Mars is so important: it is the quickest, surest means of creating large, self-sufficient populations off of Earth---and the sooner we start, the greater our chances of insuring the survival of our species and civilization.

The thing is, we aren't spending "so much" money and resources on the issue of terraforming Mars, and space colonization in general. In fact, we are spending far too little on this issue. Don't get me wrong, preserving the rainforests and possibly transforming terrestrial deserts into richer ecosystems (and by rich I am referring to both biodeversity and total biomass) are certainly good things to be doing, and "suffering due to drought, soil erosion, etc" is certainy an issue that should be dealt with. However, none of these things should take precedent over the long-term survival of our species and civilization.